Newclear Power

Most of all we need energy. When we put on a light, cook food, bake a cake, watch TV, drive our car, train or tram and so forth. It all needs an amount of energy.

After several years of fighting against nuclear power supported by many different organisation, the world and its view of nuclear power plants seems to have changed.

If not, why is it, that many countries are planning on building new power plants?

The argument goes like that:

First of all nuclear power is always said to be a ‘cheap’ energy source.

Secondly it is low on carbon dioxide.

Thirdly alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, thermal and water could never be as efficient and produce as much as nuclear power.

Let’s take a look at some of those arguments.

To number one: Cheap? How can an energy, which produces nuclear waste can be cheap? They still have no idea whatsoever how to store this waste. Furthermore every time the ground water is affected, not to mention the millions of tons of contaminated water that are lead into the many oceans. Well, we don’t consider, that the contamination is irreversible, that it affects humans, plants and the wildlife in general and for a period of time unbelievable for the average human being – 100.000 to 200.000 years. How many generations are that? Like 6000 as I have heard.

So, how is that supposed to be cheap again?

To number two: Low on carbon dioxide? I have no official numbers but common sense makes me think, that the uranium has to come from somewhere and I know WE here don’t have something like a ‘uranium mine’. So the main producers of uranium are: Canada, Australia, Russia, Nigeria, Namibia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Africa and the US. So, how is it possible, that something is transported miles and miles and though is said to be free or low on carbon dioxide?

To number three: If we started to think differently, there would be a chance. People tend to centralize everything. What about decentralization? When we had a mixture of different energy sources, and maybe produced some of the amount we needed by ourselves like with little solar stations on our houses and buildings or differently (there are many ideas for that, which don’t come to the public) then there would be a way to change the way of providing and the medium it is produced by.

But you know, the thing is: when you decentralize something, the big companies can’t earn an immense amount of money. So that’s why they don’t want anyone to be independent. They’d lose money. And god forbid, we don’t want that, do we?

So latest news from France and Germany show, that the Lobbies and the Lobbying are doing quite a good job. Media reported that both countries sell their radioactive waste to Russia, where it is meant to be ‘recycled’. That means the containers filled with this toxic waste are stored on a huge field under the blue Russian sky, free to be affected by weather and by all means by everything that is possible to happen. Ah, I forgot. The waste is explosive as well, as was demonstrated spectacularly 1957 when waste like that exploded and contaminated people, a huge area around it and the water and the plants and the animals and so on – and is still. (I don’t remember the name of the area, but I will research it and then give an update on that.)

What, you didn’t know that? Well, it was all hushed up, good and proper.

So in one of Germany’s ‘storage facilities’ – an old salt mine – which was said to be 100% save, they not only found far more waste than officially stated, but also was filled up with water to the rim which means that the ground water seemed to be affected. Similar in France, where they found more waste and uranium than was stated officially.

Thanks guys! We really know we can trust you.

So, examples – I have more than enough of those. And for not only the three but every good reason we should leave nuclear power behind us and move on.